"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity." Most people on r.a.o. want the
best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part
of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little
soft.

-1 dB at 25 KHz is highly unlikely to be audible. Most SS amps are -0.5 dB
or more down at 20 KHz into their rated load.

My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

Sonically irrelevant, but since Bob believes it is true, he *hears* it.
I don't believe I can hear past 20K.
I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast amplifiers is why I
prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for you to grasp.

Robert Morein said:

I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast amplifiers is why I
prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for you to grasp.

On a lighter note, I got invited to a sailing trip in the Caribbean in
mid-January. I'm virtually a novice at sailing. What kind of exercises
should I do to prepare?


P.S.: Reasoning is irrelevant to the Krooborg because all facts and
logic are subordinate to the "debating trade". But I'm sure you knew
that. G

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:18:54 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity." Most people on r.a.o. want the
best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part
of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little
soft.

-1 dB at 25 KHz is highly unlikely to be audible. Most SS amps are -0.5 dB
or more down at 20 KHz into their rated load.

My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

Sonically irrelevant, but since Bob believes it is true, he *hears* it.
I don't believe I can hear past 20K.
I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast amplifiers is why I
prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for you to grasp.

You're trying to make a radar to detect little green men under your
house?

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in
message
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:18:54 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a
bit too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my
sample. With a little more conservative speccing
the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to
be ashamed of. What's wrong with a 120/120-watt
amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity." Most people
on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What
part of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a
little soft.

-1 dB at 25 KHz is highly unlikely to be audible. Most
SS amps are -0.5 dB or more down at 20 KHz into their
rated load.

My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

Sonically irrelevant, but since Bob believes it is
true, he *hears* it.
I don't believe I can hear past 20K.
I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast
amplifiers is why I prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for
you to grasp.

You're trying to make a radar to detect little green men
under your house?

That explains the crumpled aluminum foil wrapped around Morein's head. ;-)

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:27:27 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Robert Morein said:

I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast amplifiers is why I
prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for you to grasp.

On a lighter note, I got invited to a sailing trip in the Caribbean in
mid-January. I'm virtually a novice at sailing. What kind of exercises
should I do to prepare?


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very uncomfortable.


P.S.: Reasoning is irrelevant to the Krooborg because all facts and
logic are subordinate to the "debating trade". But I'm sure you knew
that. G

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your
walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC
amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a
better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX
series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the
output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective
by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection
for
their configuration.

Behringer appear to have copied more than just the 'configuration'.
I've
only
seen pics of the internals so can't comment in too much detail but I
*can*
tell
you that Sekaku also copied the RMX design *down to the level of even
using the
same component reference numbers* on the circuit boards.


Apparently they don't copy the fans, as I understand the Behringer fans
are
more noisy thatn the QSC.

I assume they use a different brand. They are both standard 80mm sq 24V DC
'boxer style' fans. In their intended application ( sound reinforcement )
one
expects some fan noise from the amp rack anyway. It's hardly likely to
figure on
one's decision list.

Graham

Only mentoned it because the QSC is more suitable for home use because of
the quieter fan, although the fan is easily replace by a quieter one for
about 12 bucks.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:

"What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"


Obviously, that's not enough for you ;-)


They're bridgeable. So maybe it won't be 500 watts, but still enough to
avoid clipping and fine for a sub.


I know, I was teasing you a little.

But I still wonder why I never felt the need for more than 20 V rms at
the speaker's terminals, that is incredibly loud to me.

Loud is where clipping happens. If you're happy, fine. For me I like
knowing with certainty that I won't ever have to worry about any transients
being clipped. As Stewart mentioned B&W changed out one of their amps
because of audible clipping. If I can get enough power that allows me to
not have that worry at an extremely affordable price, why not? I don't have
to play it any louder, but as it now, it never seems oppressively loud to me
the way many concerts do.

And my speakers don't have average sensitivity, they're only 84 dB/w/m
(2.83V) per channel.

Mine are 86 dBw/m, but that's not the issue.

Granted, there are 2 in parallel on each channel, which would make a
total of 87 dB/w/m per channel.

The simple fact is that it's very hard to have to much power as loing as you
don't overdrive the speakers and tranisents can require massive amounts of
power if only for a fraction of second.
Perhaps that's why some people think SS sounds bad to them., they are
hearing clipping.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised,
it still winds up being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"
The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth,

Where in the spec sheet do you find that?

low bias,

Where in the spec sheet do you find that?

Class AB design.

OK

Sure, it generates power, but I've
heard enough amplifiers of this type to expect
mediocrity.

All the time avoiding level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests.

And when specs are exaggerated, expectations
should be minimized.

Actually, there's a lot to be said for listening with an open mind.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is not
"high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Actually Bob, it probably sounds better than the tired worn-out carp you
say that you diefy.

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

I think that what most of us really want is the best sound quality
possible given our budget and other resources. If the A500 passes a
straight-wire bypass test with a real-world speaker load, then it's doing
its job.

Plus as I've said many times, it would make an perfectly fine subwoofer amp.
As for the HF rolloff, I know I can't hear 20kHz, and I seriusly doubt
Robert can.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds
up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit too sanguine, it
seems, but maybe it's just my sample. With a little more conservative
speccing the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed
of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low bias, Class AB
design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough amplifiers of this type
to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated, expectations should be
minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does that mean we really
want it in our systems? This is not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high fidelity" is
about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part of the specs made
you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little soft.
My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

You found a review ?

I'd agree that the response is a little down compared to what I'd typically
target myself ( say -0.3 to -0.5 dB @ 20kHz ) but you're mistaken to think this
means 'low bandwidth'. In reality I expect the above difference to be around
half an octave in the extended HF response.

Highly extended HF response can come with RF stability issues ( especially into
awkward loads ) if the design isn't *very* carefully done.

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity." Most people on r.a.o. want the
best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part
of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little
soft.

-1 dB at 25 KHz is highly unlikely to be audible. Most SS amps are -0.5 dB
or more down at 20 KHz into their rated load.

My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

Sonically irrelevant, but since Bob believes it is true, he *hears* it.

Bat ears ? He doesn't also sleep upside down hanging from a branch and eat a
diet of fruit too by any chance ? ;-)

Graham

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

You're trying to make a radar to detect little green men under your
house?

Hah ! They finally perfected the subterranean black helicopter then ?

Graham

wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds
up
being a helluva bargain.

It is *shockingly* UGLY though !

Graham

Eye of the beholder.

Never a problem for me anyway. I just want stuff that works and is in the
price range I'm considering. If I can't find something in that range, then
I have to go higher, but with things like amps which have not changed much
in decades,

Not *much* maybe in very obvious changes to topologies perhaps but actually I
think there's been a lot of detail refinement. My own amp designs now benefit
from extensive circuit modelling using CAD tools for example that has improved
bandwidth and distortion performance figures for example.

I figured it wouldn't be that hard to do a decent one for a low
cost, otherwise the pro amp market would be considerably smaller.

You are broadly correct about that - at least in terms of an 'averagely' good
amplifier. Expect 'ultra-performance' still to come at a premium. The above
Behringer example is not unlike what NAD did in the hi-fi market when they
started out.

Graham

wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your
walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC
amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a
better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX
series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the
output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective
by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection
for
their configuration.

Behringer appear to have copied more than just the 'configuration'.
I've
only
seen pics of the internals so can't comment in too much detail but I
*can*
tell
you that Sekaku also copied the RMX design *down to the level of even
using the
same component reference numbers* on the circuit boards.


Apparently they don't copy the fans, as I understand the Behringer fans
are
more noisy thatn the QSC.

I assume they use a different brand. They are both standard 80mm sq 24V DC
'boxer style' fans. In their intended application ( sound reinforcement )
one
expects some fan noise from the amp rack anyway. It's hardly likely to
figure on
one's decision list.

Graham

Only mentoned it because the QSC is more suitable for home use because of
the quieter fan, although the fan is easily replace by a quieter one for
about 12 bucks.

Yup. You can make a little improvement there and the reduced cooling from a
lower speed fan isn't an issue for home use. Even so, I know that fan noise is
very distracting when listening at night for example. Good news is that the fan
is speed controlled according to heatsink temperature.

Graham

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:25:53 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:27:27 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Robert Morein said:

I do believe that some associated characteristic of fast amplifiers is why I
prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated for you to grasp.

On a lighter note, I got invited to a sailing trip in the Caribbean in
mid-January. I'm virtually a novice at sailing. What kind of exercises
should I do to prepare?


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very uncomfortable.

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio system for many
years. That should have been uncomfortable enough.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:25:53 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:27:27 -0500, George M. Middius
cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Robert Morein said:

I do believe that some associated characteristic of
fast amplifiers is why I prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated
for you to grasp.

On a lighter note, I got invited to a sailing trip in
the Caribbean in mid-January. I'm virtually a novice at
sailing. What kind of exercises should I do to prepare?


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio
system for many years. That should have been
uncomfortable enough.

LOL!

In reality George has to conceal the details of his personal audio system
because he fears it would reveal too much about the person who animates his
persona. Same reason he doesn't like to talk about audio - he thinks that if
he did he would reveal himself as being too knowlegable about audio, and
that would be revealing.

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a
bit too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my
sample. With a little more conservative speccing the
numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be
ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part
of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little
soft.
My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

You found a review ?

I'd agree that the response is a little down compared to
what I'd typically target myself ( say -0.3 to -0.5 dB @
20kHz ) but you're mistaken to think this means 'low
bandwidth'. In reality I expect the above difference to
be around half an octave in the extended HF response.

Highly extended HF response can come with RF stability
issues ( especially into awkward loads ) if the design
isn't *very* carefully done.

Acoustat amps don't have the best rep for stability. They've been out of
production since before a lot of people who drive and vote were born. Most
have probably died by now.

wrote in message
ink.net

Plus as I've said many times, it would make an perfectly
fine subwoofer amp. As for the HF rolloff, I know I can't
hear 20kHz, and I seriously doubt Robert can.

If Robert thinks he can hear it, then he can hear it as surely as he hears
anything he tells us he can hear. ;-)

His problem with the PhD was probably that he tried the same techique with
his advisory committee. Having IQs well in excess of 100 and being of sound
mind, they didn't buy it.

paul packer said:

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio system for many
years. That should have been uncomfortable enough.

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system. Especially since it's
free of both phono and MD.

Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :

Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very uncomfortable.


No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Lionel" wrote in message

Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :

Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.

No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D

Right, George's preferred seat-enhancers are probably not exactly cleats.
;-)

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio
system for many years. That should have been
uncomfortable enough.

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

Congratuations on your good taste, George. I sincerily mean that.

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.


No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D


Right, George's preferred seat-enhancers are probably not exactly cleats.
;-)


The more it's "uncomfortable" the more he loves...


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.


No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D


Right, George's preferred seat-enhancers are probably
not exactly cleats. ;-)


The more it's "uncomfortable" the more he loves...

Nahh, he's got his favorite tub of Ultra-Glide at hand, as it were. ;-)

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still
winds
up
being a helluva bargain.

It is *shockingly* UGLY though !

Graham

Eye of the beholder.

Never a problem for me anyway. I just want stuff that works and is in
the
price range I'm considering. If I can't find something in that range,
then
I have to go higher, but with things like amps which have not changed
much
in decades,

Not *much* maybe in very obvious changes to topologies perhaps but
actually I
think there's been a lot of detail refinement. My own amp designs now
benefit
from extensive circuit modelling using CAD tools for example that has
improved
bandwidth and distortion performance figures for example.

I figured it wouldn't be that hard to do a decent one for a low
cost, otherwise the pro amp market would be considerably smaller.

You are broadly correct about that - at least in terms of an 'averagely'
good
amplifier. Expect 'ultra-performance' still to come at a premium.

What is your definition of ultra performance?


The above
Behringer example is not unlike what NAD did in the hi-fi market when they
started out.

Graham


For my purposes, anything that passes a straightwire bypass IS ultra
performance. I do not ever intend to use wierd speaker loads, in fact I'd
be more inclined to use powered speakers.

Since I can't hear 20kHz, the A500 would very likely pass a straight wire
test for me, and if not, then it's going to drive my Adire Shiva based sub
in bridged mode.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:25:53 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:27:27 -0500, George M. Middius
cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Robert Morein said:

I do believe that some associated characteristic of
fast amplifiers is why I prefer fast.
Unfortuntately, this reasoning is too sophisticated
for you to grasp.

On a lighter note, I got invited to a sailing trip in
the Caribbean in mid-January. I'm virtually a novice at
sailing. What kind of exercises should I do to prepare?


Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio
system for many years. That should have been
uncomfortable enough.

LOL!

In reality George has to conceal the details of his personal audio system
because he fears it would reveal too much about the person who animates
his persona. Same reason he doesn't like to talk about audio - he thinks
that if he did he would reveal himself as being too knowlegable about
audio, and that would be revealing.

I think he's revealed more than enough about himself already.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Lionel" wrote in message

Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :

Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.

No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D

Right, George's preferred seat-enhancers are probably not exactly cleats.
;-)
Eeeeeww!

"Boy" wrote in message
k.net...

"Man" wrote in message
...
"Lionel" wrote in message

Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :

Practice sitting on a cleat or anything very
uncomfortable.

No problem !!! George is trained ! :-D

Right, George's preferred seat-enhancers are probably not exactly cleats.
;-)
Eeeeeww!

Your mutual tenderness is very touching.

Cheers,

Margaret

Mickey and the Krooborg exchange confidences about moi.

In reality George has to conceal the details of his personal audio system blah blah blah blah blah blah

I think he's revealed more than enough about himself already.

Hey, here's a thought: Why don't the two of you get together in private?
It would give you much more satisfaction than this "69 pitty party"
routine you display in cyberspace's front window.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:03:41 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Mickey and the Krooborg exchange confidences about moi.

In reality George has to conceal the details of his personal audio system blah blah blah blah blah blah

I think he's revealed more than enough about himself already.

Hey, here's a thought: Why don't the two of you get together in private?
It would give you much more satisfaction than this "69 pitty party"
routine you display in cyberspace's front window.

Don't forget "Le(s) Voyeur". They might as well make it a threesome.

In article ,
ow says...


You're trying to make a radar to detect little green men
under your house?


Now you speak of little green men...
Ain't seen 'em since I don't know when.
But the Dudes around here
I truly do fear...
They appear to be their kin. :-)

Holliday cheers to all.
Hammingaway

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Hey, here's a thought


Now we note 'ol George had a thought
And some wisdom to us all he brought.
He gives out advice,
That ain't real nice
In hopes AK will become distraught.

Holliday cheers to all.
Hammingaway

jclause said:

Hey, here's a thought

Now we note 'ol George had a thought
And some wisdom to us all he brought.
He gives out advice,
That ain't real nice
In hopes AK will become distraught.

Actually, suicidal. But it's the thought that counts. :-)

In article ,
says...

Well don't feckin' read those posts, you whining ****!


Now 'ol Pinky, he don't take no crap,
You cross him and he'll give you a slap
Don't step on his toe,
Or he'll puff and blow
And he'll jump your butt in a snap.

Holliday cheers to all.
Hammingaway

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:54:03 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio system for many
years. That should have been uncomfortable enough.

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system. Especially since it's
free of both phono and MD.

Those two products should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

As I thought, your judgement is all shot to hell.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:11:51 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio
system for many years. That should have been
uncomfortable enough.

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

Congratuations on your good taste, George. I sincerily mean that.

So you'll even stoop to praising George in order to damn MD. Just how
low will you go, Arnie?

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



jclause said:

Hey, here's a thought

Now we note 'ol George had a thought
And some wisdom to us all he brought.
He gives out advice,
That ain't real nice
In hopes AK will become distraught.

Actually, suicidal. But it's the thought that counts. :-)


Now we know that AK's is a nerd...
A little different from the rest of the herd
But is that good or bad?
'cause he's a pretty sharp lad
Problem is, he can sometimes be a turd.

Holliday cheers
Hammingaway

paul packer said:

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

Congratuations on your good taste, George. I sincerily mean that.

So you'll even stoop to praising George in order to damn MD. Just how
low will you go, Arnie?

Choosing between you and Krooger is like choosing between Kool-Aid and
HiC. Either way, it's a giant case of yucko.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:11:51 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

George has been sitting on his opinion of his audio
system for many years. That should have been
uncomfortable enough.

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

Congratuations on your good taste, George. I sincerily
mean that.

So you'll even stoop to praising George in order to damn
MD. Just how low will you go, Arnie?

It's called objectivity.

it's called fairness.

When Middius is right, it doesn't matter that he's Middius. He's right and
that is what matters.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote in message

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

It's called objectivity.

it's called fairness.

When Middius is right, it doesn't matter that he's Middius. He's right and
that is what matters.

Well done, Arnii!

To be objective and fair, I hope that if your church ever burns down, your
wife makes it out alive.

Cheers,

Margaret

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:10:34 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Silly Ozzie, I have a high opinion of my system.
Especially since it's free of both phono and MD.

Congratuations on your good taste, George. I sincerily mean that.

So you'll even stoop to praising George in order to damn MD. Just how
low will you go, Arnie?

Choosing between you and Krooger is like choosing between Kool-Aid and
HiC. Either way, it's a giant case of yucko.

Drink up, George, there's a good boy.